It is common today to assert that Jesus' death was primarily an example
apart from any notion of substitution or propitiation. The origin of
this belief can be traced to Faustus Socinus who rooted his belief on 1
Peter 2:21 and 1 John 2:6. Of course neither fully defend his assertion
that Jesus died to give us an example of love (a point similar to the
moral influence theory of the atonement made popular by Abelard and
Horace Bushnell). In 1 Peter 2:24, for example, Peter makes it clear
that not only is the cross an example for believers on how to suffer
well, but it is also substitutionary. He writes, and He Himself bore
our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live
to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
There is another reason why Socinus' theory of the atonement falls flat.
Consider the following illustration from Dr. Millard Erickson:
Suppose that a house is on fire. The parents have escaped, only to
discover that their infant child is still within the burning house.
Physically overcome, they are unable to reenter the home. A fireman,
however, rushed into the house, saves the child, but in the process is
himself overcome and dies. This would certainly be considered a
beautiful example of love for one's fellow human at a disregard for his
own safety. It would indeed be inspiring to others. But suppose there is
no child in the house, and the parents insist that there is no child,
and the fireman himself believes that no one is in the house. If he
nonetheless rushed into the house and died, would we be impressed by the
example, or would we consider it a case of foolhardiness? No one would
want to emulate such an example and, indeed, no one ought to. And what
of a superior who would order a fireman into the flames just to give an
example of how dedicated firemen should be and to what lengths they
should be willing to go in the call of duty? Should anyone follow such
an order? Yet Christ's death represents this type of situation if the
purpose of the atonement was not to pay the penalty for our sins, but
simply to give us an example. One the other hand, if there really is a
child in the house, not only is the child saved, but we are given an
example of bravery and unselfishness. Similarly, if humanity is guilty
of sin and condemned to death, and Christ has laid down his life in the
place of the human race, not only are we saved, but we are given an
example of how to live. The death of Christ is an example, but only if
it also is a substitutionary sacrifice. (836-837)
This is a very important point. If the atonement is only about love and
God's example of what love looks like, it is empty if it isn't a rescue
operation for sinners like you and me.
May 26, 2013 | Why the Cross Matters
June 2, 2013 | Jesus Wins: Christus Victor
June 9, 2013 | Jesus Won: Christus Victor
June 23, 2013 | The Courtroom: Sola Fida
For more:
We are Slaves: MacArthur on What We Are Redeemed From
The Heart & Soul of Christianity: MacArthur on Redemption
A Victorious People: John Stott on Christus Victor & the Vocabular of the First Christians
"The Cross of Christ" by John Stott: A Review
Its Not Just a Theory: Stott on Penal Substitution
John Stott on the The Human Enigma
Allison: A History of the Doctrine of the Atonement
"Salvation Brings Imitation": Piper on Christus Exemplar
Where Theology and Life Intersect: A Theological Case for Christus Exemplar and Why It is Necessary - Part 1 - Introduction
Where Theology and Life Intersect: A Theological Case for Christus Exemplar and Why It is Necessary - Part 2 - Christus Exemplar and the doctrine of sin and depravity
Where Theology and Life Intersect: A Theological Case for Christus Exemplar and Why It is Necessary - Part 3 - The History of Christus Exemplar
Where Theology and Life Intersect: A Theological Case for Christus Exemplar and Why It is Necessary - Part 4 - Christus Exemplar and Humility
Sanctification Demands It: The Necessity of the Atonement
"Death by Love" by Mark Driscoll
"In My Place, Condemned He Stood"
"It is Well"
"Precious Blood": A Review
Thursday, August 8, 2013
The Cross an Object or Example of Faith?
Labels:
atonement,
Christ,
cross,
crucifixion,
doctrine,
Erickson,
Jesus,
Jesus Christ,
Millard Erickson,
quote,
theology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment